Bitch Media - New York magazinehttp://bitchmagazine.org/taxonomy/term/8140/0
enIt May Be Different for "Girls," But the NY Mag Cover Photos Are More of the Same http://bitchmagazine.org/post/ny-mag-cover-story-its-different-for-girls
<p>Emily Nussbaum's cover story for the current issue of <em>New York</em> magazine, "<a href="http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/girls-lena-dunham-2012-4/index1.html"target="_blank">It's Different for Girls</a>," is about how Lena Dunham's hotly anticipated new HBO series is, well, different. As much as an HBO show about white 20-somethings in New York <em>can</em> be different, anyway. And it's a great profile piece for anyone interested in the show (which I am), as it gives some insight into how it's being made and how Dunham is operating as the show's creator and star. What I don't understand, though, is how this profile inspired this cover:</p>
<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7051/7021910951_67a9bb59d1.jpg" alt="Lena Dunham posing for NY Mag with a headline that says Girls is the Ballsiest show on TV" /><br />
<em>Photos by Autumn De Wilde</em></p>
<p>If the point of the article is that <em>Girls</em> is a "revolutionary" show with a refreshingly honest and thoughtful young woman at its helm (and by all accounts that description of Dunham is accurate), how did we end up with this cutesy, <a href="http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/238/studyguide_238.pdf"target="_blank">canting</a> cover juxtaposed with the word BALLSY under it? </p>
<p>Another photo of the cast from the shoot, far from seeming "different" or "new" or "honest," appears to have been ripped from the back of the <em>Virgin Suicides</em> DVD:</p>
<p> <img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7256/6875805666_1b171b8f04.jpg" alt="the four leads of Girls posed lying on the grass wearing pretty dresses" /></p>
<p>I'm not saying that Dunham and her costars don't look nice in these photos (they do), or that these photos are somehow offensive or shocking (they aren't, at least not really). However, for a cover story about a show that's said to be groundbreaking precisely because it doesn't gloss over the less-than-pretty parts of being a young woman, these shots are about as stereotypically pretty as you can get.</p>
<p>Says Nussbaum about the depiction of bodies on the show:</p>
<blockquote><p>Dunham films herself nude, with her skin breaking out, her belly in folds, chin doubled, or flat on her back with her feet in a gynecologist's stirrups. These scenes shouldn't shock, but they do, if only because in a culture soaked in Photoshop and Botox, few powerful women open themselves up so aggressively to the judgment of voyeurs.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not exactly the spirit that comes through in the cover pics, is it? </p>
<p>Do we need Dunham in her underwear on the cover of <em>New York</em> magazine in order to stay true to the ethos of <em>Girls</em>? Of course not. But these photos go in the complete opposite direction, placing Dunham and her pale-frocked costars firmly in the male gaze—cemented there by the use of the word "ballsiest." (Remind me why we need to use that term to describe women, again?) Instead of representing a "retort to a culture that pathologizes feminine adventure," these photos depict it. </p>
<p>Is it too much to ask that the media coverage of a show that's honest about (a certain kind of privileged, educated white) women's experiences at least reflect that? Ugh, maybe it's not so different for <em>Girls</em> after all.</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/ny-mag-cover-story-its-different-for-girls#commentsgirlsLena DunhamNew York magazineSocial CommentaryTue, 27 Mar 2012 21:28:05 +0000Kelsey Wallace16025 at http://bitchmagazine.orgNo Kidding: Studies Tell Us Parenting is Toughhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/no-kidding-more-studies-tell-us-parenting
<p>At the end of my first post in this series, I made sure to link to a <i>New York</i> article from last summer, <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/" target="_blank">"All Joy and No Fun."</a> At the time (and probably still), the piece made people go a little berserk. The idea that having children, that parenting is not a wholly rewarding, fantastic experience, seemed to really chafe. I get why, even if I think these stories create a more open, honest dialogue about why some people choose not to have kids.</p>
<p>Last week, <i>Time</i> published another piece along the same lines, <a href="http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/why-having-kids-is-foolish/" target="_blank">"Kid Crazy: Why We Exaggerate the Joys of Parenthood."</a> This piece focuses on actual studies from the journal <i>Psychological Science</i> about parenting, but the take-away is still the same as the <i>New York</i> article (so much so that it's mentioned in <i>Time</i>): childfree couples are happier, parents have it rough, and those who think they don't are sort of delusional. ("Delusional" is not my word, by the way; that's from the meta title <i>Time</i> chose for the article on their website and one tossed around in the article, based on the study findings.)</p>
<p>According to the studies, parents have been found to be angrier, more depressed, and to have less satisfying partnerships than childfree couples. It also looks at the financial compromises that come with raising a child and how parents explain away the cognitive dissonance that arises when you consider just how much it actually costs to raise a kid today. (In one part of the study, $193,680 was cited as the average for a middle-income family in the Northeast to raise a child until age 18. Google "cost of raising a child" and you'll get numbers that suggest a quarter of a million dollars is the average a middle-class family shell out.)</p>
<p>Since the topic of money comes up here a lot—the cost of a tubal ligation, for example, or the idea that not having kids is selfish (which in my experience is usually judged from an emotional <i>and</i> financial standpoint)—I'm particularly interested in these numbers. I don't know about you, but I don't plan on having an extra quarter of a mil in disposable income over the next two decades. That might only be $12,500 a year, but that's an awful lot of money to most of us. I'm not naive enough to think people choose to have kids for financial reasons, but at what point does it become problematic, if ever?</p>
<p>Because I've been doing it here for the last six weeks, all of this also begs the question: do we have to keep revisiting this idea? Do we really need to tell people that their choices might make them unhappy? Doesn't it just make everyone defensive? Or is there something useful in acknowledging that raising kids today isn't exactly a picnic? Why do we feel compelled to constantly justify our behaviors, no matter what they are?</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/no-kidding-more-studies-tell-us-parenting#commentschildfreechildlesschildrenChoiceNew York magazineNo KiddingParentingTime magazineSocial CommentaryFri, 11 Mar 2011 18:21:12 +0000Brittany Shoot9419 at http://bitchmagazine.orgMidwife crisis: No home births, please, we're New Yorkershttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/midwife-crisis-no-home-births-please-were-new-yorkers
<p> <img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3581/4596420253_fbdcd6d5d5.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></p>
<p>Since we're already piling up the posts about both mothers and pregnancy, now seems like a good time to issue a call to action on an issue that doesn't usually come up when we talk about reproductive rights: home birth. </p>
<p>The 2007 documentary <i><a href="http://www.thebusinessofbeingborn.com/index.php" rel="nofollow">The Business of Being Born</a></i> was, for many women (and men) an eye-opening look at the increasing medicalization of birth in America and a compelling illustration of the way midwife-assisted home birth can be a powerful alternative to the standard hosptial delivery. The film—which was produced by home-birth advocate Ricki Lake—along with books like Jennifer Block's powerful and well-researched <i>Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care</i>, brought the subject of home birth out of the fringes and into the mainstream. Soon enough, home birth was a hot topic in the pages of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/garden/13birth.html" rel="nofollow">New York Times</a>, Ricki Lake and <i>BoBB</i> director Abby Epstein's book <i>Your Best Birth</i> was published, celebrities like Cindy Crawford, Demi Moore, and Lisa Bonet were testifying to their own home-birth experiences, and birthing tubs were flying off the Internet's virtual shelves.</p>
<p>Naturally, there was some backlash. A <i>New York</i> magazine <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/55500/index4.html" rel="nofollow">profile</a> of Cara Muhlhahn, a New York City midwife featured in <i>The Business of Being Born</i>, painted her as a kind of renegade of home birth, shunning malpractice insurance and pooh-poohing one husband who expressed concern that perhaps his wife's 72-hour labor was the sign of a problem. The piece, titled &quot;Extreme Birth: Is Midwife Cara Muhlhahn Too Fearless in Her Home-Birth Advocacy?&quot; painted midwives as a kind of hippie-dippy thorn in the side of the city's hospitals, since patients whose home-based labor hit obstacles end up being transferred to the hospital with which their midwife has signed a written practice agreement, or &quot;backup&quot; agreement. And though the piece garnered dozens of comments from women and men who had successfully labored and birthed at home with the help of Muhlhahn or other midwives, it added animosity to an already-brewing clash between home-birth advocates and hospitals. </p>
<p>It's somewhat ironic that with all the mainstream press home birth has gotten in the past few years, it's now, at least in New York City, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/nyregion/06midwives.html" rel="nofollow">headed back to the margins</a>. St. Vincent's, the NYC hospital that had backup agreements with more than half of the city's home-birth midwives, closed on April 30 due to bankruptcy. New York State law requires that all practicing midwives have WPAs with hospitals, but due to a variety of factors—malpractice fears/costs, skepticism over home-birth safety, and more—doctors at those hospitals have so far declined to negotiate new agreements with midwives. The result is that home birth in New York City could effectively become illegal almost overnight. The clients of these midwives are now forced to choose between two deeply insufficient options: Show up at their local hospital when they go into labor and be attended to by whatever provider happens to be on call, or have their babies at home, as planned, with a midwife who stands to lose her license if the birth ends with a trip to the hospital due to complications. </p>
<p>I'll say right now that I had exactly zero interest in having my baby at home. To be completely crass, it sounded like a lot of extra laundry. And I knew myself well enough to know that I would want that epidural eventually (after 20 hours of labor, it was indeed awesome). My hospital birth was not ideal—there were monitors strapped to me, there was Pitocin, there was the dreaded episiotomy. But there was also a big tub to labor in, a big-screen TV on which to watch <i>Saturday Night Live</i>, and an endless supply of ice chips. I was happy there; many women are happy at home, in their own beds or a warm tub in their living room. The point is, choosing how one wants to give birth is an essential piece of the larger picture of reproductive rights, and for many women giving birth at home is both personally meaningful and a mindful effort to avoid the snowball effect of medical interventions that often result from minimum-risk hospital deliveries like the one I had. (This also seems like a good place to link to one of my favorite comics ever, Christen Clifford and David Heatley's <a href="http://www.smithmag.net/memoirville/2009/05/06/my-home-birth-a-graphic-graphic-memoir-by-christen-clifford-and-david-heatley/" rel="nofollow">&quot;My Home Birth: A Graphic Graphic Memoir.&quot;)</a></p>
<p>As Miriam at <a href="http://radicaldoula.com/2010/04/13/access-to-homebirth-in-nyc-put-at-risk-by-closing-of-st-vincents-hospital/" rel="nofollow">Radical Doula</a> points out, New York City's midwife community is not the only one at risk for this situation: Miami's midwife-friendly Jackson Memoiral Hospital is also currently in danger of shutting its doors. If you're interested, join <a href="http://www.choicesinchildbirth.org/" rel="nofollow">Choices in Childbirth</a> in urging the New York State legislature to adopt the Midwifery Modernization Act, which eliminates mandated WPAs between licensed midwives and physicians. And <a href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2010/04/30/solidarity-eleventh-hour-midwives" rel="nofollow">RH Realilty Check</a> has a roundup of other ways you can stand up (or, you know, squat down) for midwives and the families they serve. </p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/midwife-crisis-no-home-births-please-were-new-yorkers#commentsactivismchildbirthChristen CliffordJennifer BlockmidwivesNew YorkNew York magazineRadical Doulareproductive rightsricki lakeThe Business of Being BornSocial CommentaryMon, 10 May 2010 20:51:03 +0000Andi Zeisler3234 at http://bitchmagazine.org